I don’t know much about Tourneur, don’t even know how to pronounce Tourneur, but every time I hear about this movie it’s a (producer) “Val Lewton movie”. So maybe Tourneur isn’t the auteur here. Don’t think I have to care about that. Neat movie, mostly worth watching for Simone Simon. Funny how I’ve recently seen two of her movies (la bete humaine, devil & daniel webster) and didn’t recognize her.

Good scene in a swimming pool, some good psychiatry (“what does one tell a husband? one tells him nothing”) and probably a pretty good (if predictable) ending. Not positive about that, cuz my tape cut off right as Simone entered the panther cage. Loved how she fell in “love” with our generic male hero in less than two days, and lovely the way he proposes to her. She’s trying to tell him about her dark past, and he cuts her off, “We’ll get married and you can tell your stories to our children”. Wow! Of course he’s actually in love with his co-worker, and who can blame him. Not sure about this being one of the greatest thrillers in history, but I enjoyed it.

Cerebral, kinda unengaging movie. Interestingly done though. Allegorial, with each person representing a country or type. Seemed like a total bust for a while there, but as I was getting disappointed I asked myself “why is the movie doing this?” and figured out the allegory. A message movie then, the message being that there’s only one System that all countries and governments (even the neutrals) help perpetuate. I wasn’t as impressed with the combat scenes as everyone in the reviews and commentary was – more interested in the politics of the thing. As a political statement, it’s pretty wonderful. Probably needs another viewing sometime. Katy was cool on it but “didn’t hate it”.

Also on the disc was Diary of an Unknown Soldier, apparently the first short Watkins made that he still likes. The last day of a soldier’s life before being sent to the front, so another war commentary, told all in narration. I like Watkins’ style – it’s not like anything else I’ve been watching. Which makes me wonder why I haven’t sat down with Punishment Park yet. Seems like all of his stuff should be worth seeing.

I liked it. Liked the story, liked the pyramid-headed supervillain, liked the Hellraiser 3 ending, liked the The Others ending, liked the digi effects and the corrosion and the ash snow and the crazy acting. Josh left after 15-20 min because he “wasn’t feeling it” or prefers suspense to shock horror or something unclear. Here’s hoping pyramid-head comes back in the sequel.

Nice heist movie, glad I saw it. Looked good, competent acting, everything in its right place. Fun, twisty plot. Some humor, not at all dark and serious. Josh used movie as ammo for his idea that Clive Owen is a great actor, and I used it as ammo for my/Steve’s idea that Jodie Foster is not a great actor. Saw the nazi part and the fake-execution part coming. Nothing much to be said.

I’m glad Katy and Nick liked this movie… in fact, I’m glad I liked it the second time around. It’s just as good as I remembered, even without the director and Farmer John around to influence my thinking. I guess from here it’ll play on PBS then I’ll never hear about it again, but was fun while it lasted.

Watched the four-hour TCM reconstructed version over a few days. Liked it pretty well. Excellent intro to McTeague’s character: finds an injured bird while mining and picks it up… another miner knocks it out of his hand, so McTeague hurls the guy down a hill. Oh, and the slang between McTeague and Marcus is fun. The elderly neighbors and junk dealers provide nice counterpoints to McTeague’s relationship with his wife, and the movie keeps coming back to the heavy-handed theme of greed. I’d wondered if it had just been a four-hour movie in 1924 that Stroheim had edited himself whether anyone would talk about it half as much today. Is it THAT important a film, or is the fact that most of the footage was destroyed by the studio the thing that makes it important? Anyway, cool movie, glad I saw it. Not quite as nice as Sunrise (but what is?) and the story’s a bit of a bummer. Appropriate ending, anyway (and nicely tinted desert scenes).

Sure seems like a much more enjoyable movie the third time around. No need to keep the details and characters straight this time, just appreciate the look and the story and the excellence of the whole thing. In theaters I remember spending too much time reading subtitles and not enough time looking at the visuals. Looks disappointingly small and plain on TV, though. Katy seemed to like it.

Wonderful movie, maybe the best of the Taisho trilogy. Starts and ends very free-flowing, dreamlike… little bit of storyline in the middle there. Suzuki shifts to different scenes and characters within the same shot. Lots of color, flowers, unexplained images. Beautiful.

Man with mustache and large hands apparently likes a girl who’s afraid of old women and cherries. He also likes a german girl with her “hair in the japanese style”. Or maybe they like him, or nobody likes anybody – I was mostly gazing at the flower petals, really. A meddling mustachioed man with a hat and cane threatens everyone with his gun. Maybe some or all of them die by the end of the movie.

Katy didn’t like it and is mad that I made her watch it. Guess I won’t try showing her Yumeji next week.